Farrer hypothesis

The Farrerhypothese or Farrer theory, also Farrer - Goulder hypothesis or Farrer - Goulder - Goodacre hypothesis called, is a proposed solution to the Synoptic problem. It goes back to the English theologian Austin Farrer. The theory is that the Gospel of Mark was written first of the Synoptic Gospels, followed by the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke eventually. It comes without the assumption of a " spell source " ( collection of sayings of Jesus, usually short, called Q ') is made.

Farrer wrote in 1955, the writing On Dispensing With Q ( ≈ "Stop with Q "), which took a critical look at the current two -source theory as it was 30 years earlier prominently represented by Burnett H. Streeter. According to Farrer the two- source theory entirely depends on that you do not believe or want to believe, Luke was aware of the text of Matthew, because otherwise you would naturally a function of the one from the other to accept and certainly not that both were dependent on another source.

The Farrer theory has the advantage of simplicity: It comes from the existing tree Gospels and requires no hypothetical sources. It is represented mainly by British Bible scholar. Farrer's proposal was incorporated variously and further developed, notably by Michael Goulder ( University of Birmingham, 1927-2010 ) and Mark Goodacre ( Duke University, North Carolina).

Farrer's arguments

In his essay On Dispensing with Q ( 1955) Farrer negotiated the fact that you have no reason to postulate a sayings source Q, if the evangelist Luke was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew. Farrer's argument consists of the following four points:

1 The Q was hypothesized to answer the question of the origin of the common texts in Matthew and Luke in the event that they are independent. If, however, Luke has known the Gospel of Matthew, the question to be answered by Q, obsolete. The assumption of an independent source would for example be justified if texts that appear in Matthew and Luke together, differ widely, but together would result in an independent work with a beginning, body and an end. This is not the case for Q.

2 There is no indication in the early Christian writings, that something like 'Q' ever existed.

3 attempts at reconstruction of Q by the scholars from the common fabric of Matthew and Luke give a source that does not look like a gospel:

4 Some scholars tried to overcome the problems associated with Q, by claiming that the actual content of Q is not known. They did this even though the same problems could be overcome if one were to assume only the acquaintance of Luke with the Gospel of Matthew.

Counterarguments

Farrer's second argument was weakened by the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas ( Thom Ev). The ThomEv is probably dating from the 2nd century collection of sayings. It was first published in English in 1959, four years after Farrer's book.

Opposite Farrer's first and fourth argument BH Streeter brought forward five arguments why the Gospel of Luke could not possibly be based on the text of Matthew, after Farrer in turn countered as follows:

  • Luke had some of the Matthew texts not omitted because they were so impressive.

Farrer replied that he had omitted them because they did not fit his literary overall design.

  • Luke sometimes have preserved a urtümlichere version of a text that is also found in Matthew.

Farrer criticized the assumption that one can identify the " urtümlichere text version " - '. Blessed are the poor in spirit ', for example, the fit well with the theology of Matthew, Luke, but it was of course, the element ' in the mind ' fall to leave, because this fits his concern for the materially poor.

  • Luke follow the order of Mark, but not that of Matthew.

Farrer asked back, why he had to do the latter: ' Is it surprising that he builds his plan on the foundations of Mark, and breaks out in Matthew materials to build his building '.

  • Luke use the Markan material less well than Matthew.

Farrer replied that this was possibly so, but Luke would not be the first Editor who bring forth a less elaborate finished result. The message that was trying to convey Luke, had been the decisive aspect for the arrangement of the texts with him.

  • Luke use the texts within the same sections as Mark Matthew.

Farrer pointed out that Luke took it out a Markus context and reproduced at a different location. In Luke 10-18 he was building the teaching pieces back together so that they could emerge the points that he wanted to bring out, often by putting together the sayings of Jesus that have previously not been together. This could be done with the intention to create a kind of Christian Deuteronomy, was just as argued like that the book of Matthew should have the shape of a Christian Pentateuch.

The, Minor Agreements '

The most notable argument for Farrer hypothesis are the many places where the text of Matthew and Luke agree with each other, but differ slightly from the text of Mark: the so-called "Minor Agreements" ( " minor matches "). This arises naturally when the Luke Matthew and Mark used text, but it is difficult to understand if he used the text of Mark and Q.

Streeter told the Minor Agreements into six groups and each group invented for its own hypothesis to explain the match. Farrer comment:

327095
de